Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 4:23 am

by Rhodes

Joe McCluskey wrote:Like many others in this thread, I have been pretty underwhelmed by this new season. I recently made a brief video talking about David Lynch's self-indulgence in THE RETURN, particularly when it comes to the character of Gordon Cole. Here's a link to the video if you have any interest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVy51xrDzpk

I couldn't disagree more with you about Lynch or The Return.

Still, you're video at the end was very cool! I know we're not supposed to take it seriously, but it actually was well done.

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 5:02 am

by nimeoa

Iron_Dwarf wrote:So according to Sabrina Sutherland on the reddit AMA, almost everything that was shot appeared in the final cut. And Lynch added material during filming, that was run past Frost who could say yes or no (and apparently always said yes). That explains a lot.

Did anyone ask her why this season totally sucked, and was there a good reason?

(Yes, I'm joking... Sort of...)

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:07 am

by AhmedKhalifa

Iron_Dwarf wrote:So according to Sabrina Sutherland on the reddit AMA, almost everything that was shot appeared in the final cut. And Lynch added material during filming, that was run past Frost who could say yes or no (and apparently always said yes). That explains a lot.

Regardless of Frost's input on TPTR, it's unquestionable that it's Lynch's baby. The majority of the plot of TPTR revolves around plot threads and motifs that originated in FWWM, a project in which Frost had zero input. From the get go it has been obvious that Sutherland is Lynch's spin doctor, with Frost staying mostly silent.

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:13 am

by mine

Joe McCluskey wrote:Like many others in this thread, I have been pretty underwhelmed by this new season. I recently made a brief video talking about David Lynch's self-indulgence in THE RETURN, particularly when it comes to the character of Gordon Cole. Here's a link to the video if you have any interest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVy51xrDzpk

Great video. I found Lynch's self indulgence obvious throughout the season. I mean he turned a minor reoccurring character played by him and put him at the center of the narrative for extended lengths of time which couldn't have happened if Cooper wasn't incapacitated. It doesn't get more obvious than this.

There's also an argument to be made about the meta/public mocking aspect of it but in this case is the opposite of the one made commonly in the sense that, Cooper's awakening and the scene with Denise in particular, could be interpreted as being condescending towards those Lynch fans and critics who are unconditionally apologetic of him (the scene with Denise is meta self deprecating admitance of one of Lynch's flaws) or put more importance on the artist than the art (Cooper regains some consciousness when hearing Gordon Cole's name. What caused his awakening is a name he associates to the character who's always been Lynch's self insert plaid by himself. In short Cooper snapped out of Dougy because Lynch said so. To contrast this The One Armed Man trying to wake him up earlier had 0 success. Because it's not about Twin Peaks, it's about Lynch.).

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:20 am

by mine

AhmedKhalifa wrote:

Iron_Dwarf wrote:So according to Sabrina Sutherland on the reddit AMA, almost everything that was shot appeared in the final cut. And Lynch added material during filming, that was run past Frost who could say yes or no (and apparently always said yes). That explains a lot.

Regardless of Frost's input on TPTR, it's unquestionable that it's Lynch's baby. The majority of the plot of TPTR revolves around plot threads and motifs that originated in FWWM, a project in which Frost had zero input. From the get go it has been obvious that Sutherland is Lynch's spin doctor, with Frost staying mostly silent.

It occurred me that Frost writing 2 books after what was to be the last word on the Twin Peaks universe took definitive shape speaks for itself. What artistic reason is for him to do something like that if he was truly satisfied with The Return. Not that what he'll come up with will necessarily be better.

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:53 am

by referendum

Frost writing 2 books after what was to be the last word on the Twin Peaks universe took definitive shape speaks for itself. What artistic reason is for him to do something like that if he was truly satisfied with The Return. Not that what he'll come up with will necessarily be better.

i don't think this is right. For what it's worth ( and i know this is an idea alot of people dislike ) Lynch and Frost seem to have unmoored TP from the need to have a consistent linear narrative, and decided that Twin Peaks is a sort of story generating machine, so it is possible to tell different stories around the same themes, or with some connection to the world of TP , that can overlap or contradict each other as much as they like, because that's all they are, separate stories - separate fictional worlds - each with their own integrity, but with defining elements and themes in common. There is not one definitive version - there are versions. Frost's book has no obligation towards respecting the storyline of TP3 or vice- versa. I dunno whether i would call this meta-fiction or alternative time-lines as other people have done: I think it is something else. I suppose if we get more books and maybe another series it will be clearer what it is. @Novalis has been trying to say something about this aswell. He described it as moving from duality to multiplicity. As a structural/ story telling mechanism I am still trying to get my head round it and put it into words. If that is what is happening...I might just be seeing faces in the shadows....

ps, there was an interview i read that Lynch gave, i think it was around 2014 - before he had started filming TP but after most of it was written - when he talked about finding it an interesting idea if a detail of someone's life turned up in another time-zone, for instance, if you told a story about events that happened in 1920, but somewhere in it a character finds a piece of paper with the name ' Lee Harvey Oswald' on it, which would have of course massive significance for the viewer nowadays but meaning nothing to the character inside the story. Maybe him and Frost talk about this kind of stuff, who knows?

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:43 am

by Nighthawk

sylvia_north wrote:

AgentEcho wrote:Question for the profoundly disappointed: Would you have preferred an alternate scenario for the revival that was more akin to the current iteration of the Star Wars franchise, where a media company basically purchases the rights to the franchise and hires filmmakers who were fans of the original to continue the story forward (without input from the original creators), in which the primary creative goal is to please the fans?

I would have preferred L&F do a better job. The thing that happened in 1&2 was that thing, it's many years dead. I just wanted to be entertained or have it left alone. We'd have been just as hard on anyone else for delivering a lackluster product. I have no opinions on Star Wars, it doesn't exist to me.

Same here. I no longer think that The Return could have been any different because seeing it made me realize that I need to re-evaluate my take on FWWM. I always thought that the darkness of that movie was mostly predicated on the fact that it was Laura Palmer's story. We were seeing the world through her eyes, so to speak, and that world was malevolent, cruel. It seems that I was wrong about that interpretation though. Lynch actually decided that he was going to obliterate the original TP and impose a different narrative altogether. Unfortunately, by doing that, he made the story one dimensional.

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 10:28 am

by Joe McCluskey

mine wrote:

Joe McCluskey wrote:Like many others in this thread, I have been pretty underwhelmed by this new season. I recently made a brief video talking about David Lynch's self-indulgence in THE RETURN, particularly when it comes to the character of Gordon Cole. Here's a link to the video if you have any interest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVy51xrDzpk

Great video. I found Lynch's self indulgence obvious throughout the season. I mean he turned a minor reoccurring character played by him and put him at the center of the narrative for extended lengths of time which couldn't have happened if Cooper wasn't incapacitated. It doesn't get more obvious than this.

There's also an argument to be made about the meta/public mocking aspect of it but in this case is the opposite of the one made commonly in the sense that, Cooper's awakening and the scene with Denise in particular, could be interpreted as being condescending towards those Lynch fans and critics who are unconditionally apologetic of him (the scene with Denise is meta self deprecating admitance of one of Lynch's flaws) or put more importance on the artist than the art (Cooper regains some consciousness when hearing Gordon Cole's name. What caused his awakening is a name he associates to the character who's always been Lynch's self insert plaid by himself. In short Cooper snapped out of Dougy because Lynch said so. To contrast this The One Armed Man trying to wake him up earlier had 0 success. Because it's not about Twin Peaks, it's about Lynch.).

Glad you enjoyed the video! In regard to the Denise scene, I am hesitant to believe that it was intended to be condescending towards those who are apologetic of him. There is a certain level of self-awareness on his part, but he quickly dismisses the allegation from Denise by saying he's "old school." I don't think Lynch's ego allows for complete self-depreciation. But yes, all of this meta bologna, regardless of how it is interpreted, certainly reflects that it's more so about Lynch rather than Twin Peaks.

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 10:47 am

by Manwith

mine wrote:

AhmedKhalifa wrote:

Iron_Dwarf wrote:So according to Sabrina Sutherland on the reddit AMA, almost everything that was shot appeared in the final cut. And Lynch added material during filming, that was run past Frost who could say yes or no (and apparently always said yes). That explains a lot.

Regardless of Frost's input on TPTR, it's unquestionable that it's Lynch's baby. The majority of the plot of TPTR revolves around plot threads and motifs that originated in FWWM, a project in which Frost had zero input. From the get go it has been obvious that Sutherland is Lynch's spin doctor, with Frost staying mostly silent.

It occurred me that Frost writing 2 books after what was to be the last word on the Twin Peaks universe took definitive shape speaks for itself. What artistic reason is for him to do something like that if he was truly satisfied with The Return. Not that what he'll come up with will necessarily be better.

This is completely unfounded.

Frost said he wanted to write "Secret History" since the original show.

From an interview with Frost from 1995:

Q: How about continuing the story in a book?A: At one point, I planned to do a "James Michener-style book on the history of Twin Peaks back to the time of the geological forming of the peaks" but it never came about.

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 11:54 am

by Steve Liam

The Return failed on a screenwriting 101/filmmaking 101 level.

For example, the main antagonist in a work of dramatic fiction should probably pose a threat.

Evil Cooper wanted mysterious coordinates to a mysterious location for mysterious reasons. What was he trying to accomplish? What threat did he pose exactly? If the main antagonist doesn't seem to pose a threat, then there's nothing at stake. If there's nothing at stake, then there's no conflict - there's no tension - there's no suspense - there's no drama. And, without any of that, what is there?

Gordon Cole and company seemed mildly curious about Evil Cooper. But, because Evil Cooper posed no clear threat, there was no urgency for the trio to take any action against him. They mostly just hung out at a hotel and did nothing of consequence.

The Twin Peaks sheriff's department decided to investigate the coordinates left behind by Major Briggs. Why? They had no compelling reason to do so. There was nothing at stake to motivate them into action. They decided to do it out of sheer curiosity, and nothing more - that doesn't make for a gripping story! And, the discoveries that they made at the location amounted to nothing. Naido ended up doing nothing of consequence. The information that Andy received from The Giant ended up being of no consequence.

What happens in Las Vegas, stays in Las Vegas - the events that took place in Las Vegas had no bearing on the rest of the series. The insurance fraud storyline existed in a vacuum - it was entirely irrelevant. Cooper returned to his senses as the result of a single random event - an event that was not predicated on any of the events that preceded it - thus rendering everything that came before it entirely pointless. Bushnell Mullins and the Mitchum brothers served no purpose in the overall narrative. In episode 17, the Mitchum brothers were relegated to watching from the sidelines with absolutely nothing to do, much like Hawk and Bobby and James and many other characters.

There was no mystery in The Return. In a legitimate mystery, there is something at stake which drives the narrative and motivates the characters to find the solution. What was at stake in The Return? Viewers waited patiently for the series to answer such questions as - Why is Jacoby painting shovels? - Is Richard Horne's mother Audrey? - Who is Duncan Todd working for? - Is Bobby the father of Becky? - But, none of these questions function as legitimate mysteries. In place of legitimate mystery, The Return took its sweet time to clarify basic details, such as how one character relates to another, in an attempt to tantalize viewers. Why did we have to wait until episode 15 to have it confirmed that Richard Horne's mother was Audrey? We could've been given that information in episode 6, and it wouldn't have changed a thing! I suppose that if we had been given such information right away, there would've been one less thing to distract from the fact that there was no actual story to talk about.

There's an old filmmaking adage that goes, "Show, don't tell." The Return often had a problem with telling instead of showing. For example, we're told that Tammy Preston is a great agent - she's "got the stuff" according to Gordon Cole. But, she never does anything to demonstrate it. We just have to take David Lynch's word for it - that's boring!

There's been a lot of talk about how The Return subverts viewer expectations. Subverting the expectations of the viewer is worthwhile only if the author delivers something that is more exciting and satisfying than what the viewer expected to see. Lucy being the one to kill Evil Cooper was good for a cheap laugh, but did anyone prefer it to a confrontation between Cooper and Evil Cooper? Wouldn't it have been more exciting if Tim Roth & Jennifer Jason Leigh had a confrontation with the Mitchum brothers, like we all expected, instead of a random character that appeared out of nowhere? It certainly would've given the Mitchum brothers something to do in the scene.

Anyway, I just wanted to highlight some of the major, fundamental problems with The Return. There are many more problems that one could discuss, and many of you have already done so. I loved reading this thread as the series was unfolding. I give my thanks to all of the contributors.

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 1:03 pm

by mine

Manwith wrote:

mine wrote:

AhmedKhalifa wrote:Regardless of Frost's input on TPTR, it's unquestionable that it's Lynch's baby. The majority of the plot of TPTR revolves around plot threads and motifs that originated in FWWM, a project in which Frost had zero input. From the get go it has been obvious that Sutherland is Lynch's spin doctor, with Frost staying mostly silent.

It occurred me that Frost writing 2 books after what was to be the last word on the Twin Peaks universe took definitive shape speaks for itself. What artistic reason is for him to do something like that if he was truly satisfied with The Return. Not that what he'll come up with will necessarily be better.

This is completely unfounded.

Frost said he wanted to write "Secret History" since the original show.

From an interview with Frost from 1995:

Q: How about continuing the story in a book?A: At one point, I planned to do a "James Michener-style book on the history of Twin Peaks back to the time of the geological forming of the peaks" but it never came about.

That covers the first book but it doesn't the Final Dossier. In any case there's not much of an argument to stick to without knowing the contents of the yet to be released book.

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

For example, the main antagonist in a work of dramatic fiction should probably pose a threat.

Evil Cooper wanted mysterious coordinates to a mysterious location for mysterious reasons. What was he trying to accomplish? What threat did he pose exactly? If the main antagonist doesn't seem to pose a threat, then there's nothing at stake. If there's nothing at stake, then there's no conflict - there's no tension - there's no suspense - there's no drama. And, without any of that, what is there?

Gordon Cole and company seemed mildly curious about Evil Cooper. But, because Evil Cooper posed no clear threat, there was no urgency for the trio to take any action against him. They mostly just hung out at a hotel and did nothing of consequence.

The Twin Peaks sheriff's department decided to investigate the coordinates left behind by Major Briggs. Why? They had no compelling reason to do so. There was nothing at stake to motivate them into action. They decided to do it out of sheer curiosity, and nothing more - that doesn't make for a gripping story! And, the discoveries that they made at the location amounted to nothing. Naido ended up doing nothing of consequence. The information that Andy received from The Giant ended up being of no consequence.

What happens in Las Vegas, stays in Las Vegas - the events that took place in Las Vegas had no bearing on the rest of the series. The insurance fraud storyline existed in a vacuum - it was entirely irrelevant. Cooper returned to his senses as the result of a single random event - an event that was not predicated on any of the events that preceded it - thus rendering everything that came before it entirely pointless. Bushnell Mullins and the Mitchum brothers served no purpose in the overall narrative. In episode 17, the Mitchum brothers were relegated to watching from the sidelines with absolutely nothing to do, much like Hawk and Bobby and James and many other characters.

There was no mystery in The Return. In a legitimate mystery, there is something at stake which drives the narrative and motivates the characters to find the solution. What was at stake in The Return? Viewers waited patiently for the series to answer such questions as - Why is Jacoby painting shovels? - Is Richard Horne's mother Audrey? - Who is Duncan Todd working for? - Is Bobby the father of Becky? - But, none of these questions function as legitimate mysteries. In place of legitimate mystery, The Return took its sweet time to clarify basic details, such as how one character relates to another, in an attempt to tantalize viewers. Why did we have to wait until episode 15 to have it confirmed that Richard Horne's mother was Audrey? We could've been given that information in episode 6, and it wouldn't have changed a thing! I suppose that if we had been given such information right away, there would've been one less thing to distract from the fact that there was no actual story to talk about.

There's an old filmmaking adage that goes, "Show, don't tell." The Return often had a problem with telling instead of showing. For example, we're told that Tammy Preston is a great agent - she's "got the stuff" according to Gordon Cole. But, she never does anything to demonstrate it. We just have to take David Lynch's word for it - that's boring!

There's been a lot of talk about how The Return subverts viewer expectations. Subverting the expectation of the viewer is worthwhile only if the author delivers something that is more exciting and satisfying than what the viewer expected to see. Lucy being the one to kill Evil Cooper was good for a cheap laugh, but did anyone prefer it to a confrontation between Cooper and Evil Cooper? Wouldn't it have been more exciting if Tim Roth & Jennifer Jason Leigh had a confrontation with the Mitchum brothers, like we all expected, instead of a random character that appeared out of nowhere? It certainly would've given the Mitchum brothers something to do in the scene.

Anyway, I just wanted to highlight some of the major, fundamental problems with The Return. There are many more problems that one could discuss, and many of you have already done so. I loved reading this thread as the series was unfolding. I give my thanks to all of the contributors.

Wow, great post Steve Liam! That's exactly what I wanted to read from critics and hear from youtubers since the end of that train wreck. Thank you!

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 1:17 pm

by Shloogorgh

mine wrote:That covers the first book but it doesn't the Final Dossier. In any case there's not much of an argument to stick to without knowing the contents of the yet to be released book.

I'm pretty sure the Final Dossier came about because Frost realized fairly quickly that his hands were tied on the Secret History on revealing much on what had transpired in the last 25 years due to spoilers, but he still wanted to release something before s3. And now he can do the rest without worry

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 1:29 pm

by Venus

mlsstwrt wrote:Well we almost made 300 pages guys! I wonder if we'll crawl over that mark at some point.

In the meantime thank you all for your contributions, its been real.

Yes almost there! Lots of posters have gone but it's great we all won't have to be continually disappointed week to week now.

I'm still of the mind that if only the season could have been more like episodes 17 and 18 then I wouldn't have been quite as disappointed as I was for the 4 month run up to them. I'll at least take that from it all.

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 1:43 pm

by Steve Liam

Aqwell wrote:Wow, great post Steve Liam! That's exactly what I wanted to read from critics and hear from youtubers since the end of that train wreck. Thank you!

Thanks for the compliment. I'm glad that you enjoyed the post! It boils down to the fact that there was nothing at stake in the series. And, because there was nothing at stake, there wasn't really a story there to become invested in. There wasn't really a story there at all! Everything was more or less inconsequential. And, The Return certainly didn't function as a character study! So, there needed to be a story in order for the series to work, but we didn't get one.